NATO has a spending target, we committed to it, so we have to do it. The fact that the worst human being in power ever is pressuring to fulfill that commitment doesn't really change the fact that we do have to do it. The thing we should be pushing on is how to spend it: award those contracts to European suppliers instead of the USA.

The prime minister said he supports the latest U.S. attacks on Iran, calling it an “appropriate” response.

This is the part that is messed up and should be the lightning rod for criticism.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There are tens of agreements by most countries on earth pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce global warming.

The atmosphere's greenhouse gas content has not yet reached its peak.

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago

Because it makes a few people rich and allows the complete dismantling of democracy.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

There are tens of agreements by most countries on earth pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce global warming.

Yes, but unfortunately none of those are tied to membership to a military or economic block with significant political consequences.

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

It obviously isn't. I don't understand the question.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why is the NATO spending target more important than fixing global warming?

because Canadians are delusional morons.

what is more likely to happen to you in the next 25 years, invasion by Emmanuel Goldstein or getting sick of a disease?

We spend fuck all on diseases research, orders of magnitude more on pointless toys which just give $ to the USA.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

pointless toys which just give $ to the USA.

You spell 'sweden' and 'germany' weird, but I know you meant to write the name of the places from which we made the last two significant military purchases.

[–] RadiallyAxiomatic@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Countries and politicians commit to a lot of things that they later back out of due to various reasons. Agreements without penalties are optional.

In this case, Turnup being an unpredictable self-centered loser in charge of a large and dangerous military is considered a sufficient reason to bend the knee for now. If he fails his coup we will may stop spending. If he succeeds, then I think we will continue spending.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, Obama and Biden exercised a good deal of parsimony which allowed the Trudeau government to underspend for years. But of all the things the USA is terrorizing the world right now, holding NATO accountable for the spending commitments is the least egregious one, they're not really in the wrong here, they're just being real dicks about it. Demanding it to be raised to 5%, however, is where this demon is really manifesting, and having Carney agree to that increase is another place where I think it's fair to criticize him, I think Carney is just banking on the fact that Trump is not getting reelected.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Right... but maybe the 5% is warranted, because of the ongoing collapse of American hegemony?

We need Middle Powers to have leverage, and part of that will depend on being able to collectively stand up to military aggression from our "allies", let alone rivals.

In other words, what is the likelihood that Canada faces an existential crisis due to having insufficient investment in our military, and how much investment is required to mitigate that risk? What's the cost-benefit analysis?

I don't pretend to know enough to have an answer, but there are real concerns, not just posturing to placate a petulant would-be dictator.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

maybe the 5% is warranted, because of the ongoing collapse of American hegemony?

that will depend on being able to collectively stand up to military aggression from our “allies”

I think that's a fair point, but that's a different discussion. If Carney argues that we need to triple our defense budget because we need to prepare for the USA as a threat, I'll pay close attention to his arguments. If that was the case, we'd not be considering buying equipment from the USA. But that's not what's happening. The situation is that Trump is demanding that Canada increase the spending to 5%, and there's definitely lobby from US defense contractors eyeing these expenses coming their way. So I think it's fair to criticize that jump in commitment as appeasing to Trump.

Would I do things differently if I were Carney? Maybe not. Maybe I'd think "yeah whatever let's commit to those 5% by 2035 because this orange sack will be dead by then, and let's take our contracts and award to nordic contractors" and do things exactly as Carney is doing. The fact that I find his position fair to criticize doesn't mean that I'm totally against it, it just means that there's a good discussion to have about it. And the whole point of my initial comment is that I don't think there's a good discussion to be had about our 2% commitment, that's a done deal and we should focus on how we're going to do it instead of whether we should be doing it.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mostly by making credible threats to invade former allies.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

You're 100% correct. I don't think I would frame it as "Trump won the argument on NATO spending" so much as "Trump highlighted a weakness in NATO by turning the US into a potentially hostile force"

The former implies that Trump had the goal to increase NATO spending from member nations, which is not at all true. Instead it was more that Trump will do almost anything he is asked if the order comes from someone he respects. Be that Putin, Bibi, or some GOP mastermind.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It is true. That was a goal. Maybe not the one he was aiming for with his actions.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think I would frame it as "Trump won the argument

No, but you're also not making statements that you know a raging narcissist like Trump will be hearing.

Stroking his ego costs little, and can prevent (or reduce) future attacks.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The prime minister said he supports the latest U.S. attacks on Iran, calling it an “appropriate” response.

Fuck that. Grow a fucking spine.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

He gave a great speech at Davos using anti-union, anti-leftist rhetoric, but while he did acknowledge 'the sign' he never took it down. He just pointed to it and said that despite it always being 100% bullshit, he will only give occasional opposition to US annexation while doing his best to maintain business as usual with the US and increase cooperation with US corporations working directly with the US military and intelligence on Canadians, such as continuing to share information on Canadian with US authorities and Palantir, and allowing facebook to arbitrarily block Canadians from accessing news sources.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Europe needs to stop defence spending 1 out of every 2 euros on american weapons...

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you don't buy American weapons to subdue your dissidents America will give said weapons to your dissidents for negative monies.

[+] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's not gloss over the fact that the US was just fine with it that way for decades because of the soft power it gave them.

[+] BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They didn't tolerate it, it was by their design. Why do you think the US put bases everywhere?

Force projection allowed the US to gain tremendous power. They wanted everyone else to be dependent on them. It's what made them a superpower.

The US President was called by many, "the leader of the free world". How the fuck do you think they were in that position? It wasn't because everyone thought they were cool, it was because the US military offered protection in exchange for using the US dollar as reserve currency, the US having a guiding hand in NATO and the UN, the US powering global banking and having a disproportionate amount of control of the world order.

So no. The US never "tolerated" the rest of NATO not paying their target. They actively pursued a position of military dominance in NATO.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And the more recent demands that we start paying more are not some critique of us not keeping up our end of the bargain. It's a shakedown for protection money.

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

Not to mention shortsighted and stupid. In one year they burned away the entirety of their soft power. Relationships with them are now viewed as a liability, not a benefit.

[–] GodofLies@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

What's left unsaid at all of these events and among those in power is the admission of guilt that we as a species still cannot make peace among our own kind. NATO is an emergent reaction from historical events rather than a true solution. With the current trajectory of things, things are not looking well. We need real adults in the room to agree that killing each other is a bad thing and violence should not be used. But here we are..squabbling about money in an imperial capitalistic framework. We're so fucked.

[–] kevinrns@mstdn.social -3 points 2 weeks ago

@NightOwl

Carney is NOT HERE TO "save us" FROM TRUMP.